This article from the 22 May Guardian International Edition (reproduced below) also appeared on p24 of the UK Grauniad on 22 May. But it isn't on guardian.co.uk, which has two other versions - with less highly prejudicial headlines - both from agencies and posted the day before.
The missing version is actually from a real live Guardian reporter in NYC it appears, who hints at the propaganda value of the 'plot': the group was arrested amid an extraordinary display of police firepower including the use of an 18-wheel armoured truck; refers to the apparently naive nature of the conspiracy; and reports that there was no evidence they were linked to a wider network of jihadists.
On the other hand, the subtitle Police informant gave terror gang dud weapons fails to mention that the FBI supplied the weapons. I'm not suggesting there is any particular significance in any of this - I mention it mostly just to record what was actually printed.
But on the subject of the actual events: call me a swivel-eyed hairy-palmed conspiracy theorist (alternatively, a stater of the blindingly obvious), but it rather seems the FBI may (inadvertently, overzealously...choose your adverb) have acted as agents provocateurs. Without their intervention, would the four really now be facing charges of 'conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction within the United States' and 'conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles'? (Thanks to Tom McElroy of AP for actually bothering to report what the charges were.) It certainly makes a nice spectacle and keeps the propaganda campaign previously known as the War on Terror ticking over nicely.
[Update: now seen this detailed account, which I'd say confirms my strong suspicions and resolves the indeterminacy in the state of my palms: they are smooth after all.] I can't help thinking on this occasion, as I do probably about once a fortnight or so, of 'accomplished terrorist' Dhiren Barot aka the Doodle Bomber, whose remaining decades in Belmarsh look likely to be punctuated only by the occasional scalding.
22 May 2009
The Guardian International Edition
Ed Pilkington, New York
FBI foils jihadist bomb attacks on New York
Police informant gave terror gang dud weapons
Fireball plan shows threat to city a reality, says mayor
Four self-styled jihadists from New York planned to shock America by bombing two synagogues and bringing down a military plane in an attack conceived as revenge for the deaths of Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan, police said yesterday.
Photograph: Justin Kahn/WireImage The four men intended to carry out the attacks on Wednesday evening, planting what they thought were car bombs outside two Bronx synagogues and planning to detonate the devices at the same time as they shot down a plane with an antiaircraft missile.
But the group was arrested amid an extraordinary display of police firepower including the use of an 18-wheel armoured truck used to block the suspects’ vehicle. New York’s police chief and the city’s mayor warned yesterday that the arrests underlined the continuing security threats against the city since 9/11. But the emerging details of the plot also illuminated the ability of federal authorities to infiltrate and track nascent terrorist activities.
According to the federal case against the men, the plot began to take shape as early as June last year. James Cromitie, a petty criminal with numerous convictions who is identified as the ringleader, is alleged to have begun making inquiries about buying explosives through a mosque in Newburgh, a town about 60 miles north of New York City where he lived. He said he was upset about the war in Afghanistan, as his father was an Afghan immigrant to the US. Cromitie said he wanted to do “something to America”, lamenting that “the best target was already hit” in an apparent reference to the World Trade Centre.
Even at that early stage the police were aware of his intentions. An informant posing as a member of an extreme Pakistani group was in contact with Cromitie at the mosque and remained closely associated with him, using hidden audio and video equipment to record conversations over the following 11 months.
In October, the charges find, Cromitie began discussions with his conspirators, whom he had met in prison. Two of the three are US citizens and the third Haitian; they are all converts to Islam.
The informant tracked the meetings of the four men, and arranged, with FBI help, to supply them with 17kg (37lbs) of C-4 plastic explosives and a Stinger antiaircraft missile. The men were unaware that all the weaponry, including the explosives formed into a bomb-like object by FBI agents, was dud and harmless.
Last month, the charges allege, the men began staking out the synagogues – the Riverdale Temple and the Riverdale Jewish Centre. They also surveyed military aircraft at Stewart air national guard base in Newburgh. The plotters allegedly intended to create a “fireball that would make the country gasp”.
There was no evidence they were linked to a wider network of jihadists. “The group was relatively unsophisticated … and not connected to any outside group,” said Charles Schumer, one of New York state’s two senators.
Despite the apparently naive nature of the conspiracy, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, said the plot showed that threats against the city were “sadly all too real”.
Raymond Kelly, the city’s police commissioner, told a press conference outside the Riverdale Temple that the men had wanted to commit jihad. He quoted one of the four as saying: “If Jews were killed in this attack, that would be alright.”
Showing posts with label Dhiren Barot. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dhiren Barot. Show all posts
Sunday, 24 May 2009
Wednesday, 16 May 2007
Understatement of the month
"it was unclear whether his plots would have succeeded" - Lord Philips
The judges forgot to point out in their very diplomatic language that it is also 'unclear' that there were any co-conspirators in Dhiren's, er, conspiracy: the 'Al-Quaeda' chaps he is said to have contacted told him to get lost and stop bothering them, as I understand it.
Prosecution case against al-Qaeda Briton
[EDIT: this is a good detailed summary of the case.]
Violent terrorist and master criminal Dhiren Barot, known as the 'doodle bomber', has had his 40+ years' sentence cut to a mere 30+:
So: his plan wasn't really detailed enough to be called a plan; he didn't try to carry out this plan/daydream; even if he had tried, it is unlikely he could have executed it; and in any case even if he had managed that, it wouldn't have actually worked. Apparently, setting fire to some gas canisters in a vast draughty carpark, even assuming it could be done at all when they are inside a limo rather than on top of a huge bonfire, might not make much impact on a massive concrete building. Who would have thought it?
So he is being banged up for a 'conspiracy' which consists of: fevered scribblings in his Paperchase notebook; a silly video complete with playground 'explosion' sound effect consisting of a feeble throaty sound; and some sort of abortive attempt to get in touch with some people who may have been 'terror suspects' in their own right, but certainly didn't want anything to do with him.
The judge at first instance certainly isn't going to win any understatement prizes - he described this deluded loser who had never managed to so much as break a window as a 'very accomplished terrorist'!
Still, since the US were going to extradite (i.e. disappear) him once the UK penal system had finished with him, I suppose he had little sensible option but to plead guilty over here - assuming that he was rational enough to even make that decision.
Prosecution case against al-Qaeda Briton
[EDIT: this is a good detailed summary of the case.]
Thursday, 9 November 2006
BBC role in War of Terror
From: Tim Wilkinson
Sent:
Dear PM,
I was disappointed to hear a member of the terrorism industry being invited to put forward her views on so-called 'dirty bombs', without any opportunity for a more objective person to discuss the issue. I look to the BBC to maintain a sober balance on these issues, especially since the government is clearly so committed to pushing a scaremongering line on the so-called 'War on Terror'. The BBC risks losing credibility of it falls in with this distorted view and fails to question the information it is fed. I would have liked to have heard something about the circumstances under which confessions and other evidence were obtained in this case. The government appears to be spinning circles around you and setting the agenda - for example the recent release after three months' imprisonment of two of those detained in connection with the alleged aircraft plot was hardly reported, not to mention the Robert Cottage arrest. This kind of failure really doesn't reflect well on the BBC, which risks giving the impression that it has reverted to its fifties role as a government mouthpiece.
yours faithfully,
Tim Wilkinson
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roger Sawyer
To: Tim Wilkinson
Dear Mr Wilkinson,
Thank you for your email.
I am not sure what you mean by "member of the terrorism industry". Our interviewee, Sandra Bell, is director of Homeland Security & Resilience at the independent think tank, the Royal United Services Institute. To be honest, I can't think of a more objective speaker on the issue.
I don't know what you mean by 'scaremongering' either. We are reporting on and analysing the proceedings of a court case, in which a guilty plea has been entered. As far as I am aware, no member of Dhiren Barot's defence team has raised any questions about the manner in which the confessions or other evidence were obtained. Had such complaints been made, we would have reported and investigated them.
The Robert Cottage case is at a very early stage. The trial has not yet begun and so we are constrained by very strict legal reporting laws as to what we are able to say. So far, we are able to report very little and it is not possible yet to tell whether the case is of any significance.
Regarding the other case you mention, the information you supply is vague, so I am unable to respond.
If you do not agree with my response, you can take your complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit. Details of how to do so can be found at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
Yours sincerely,
Roger Sawyer
Assistant Editor Broadcasting House/PM mailto:roger.sawyer@bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk/radio4
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Wilkinson
Dear Mr Sawyer,
re: terrorism industry, spin, the independence of the BBC.
Thank you for your reply. I do not expect you to enter into an ongoing correspondence, but I do feel strongly about these issues and felt I should reply to your response.
Surely "Director of Homeland Security & Resilience" describes a job which is very clearly dependent on the perceived terror threat for its existence - and somewhat more subtly, clearly describes someone who sees things through the prism of the so-called War on Terror. The US-style job title suggests that the position came into existence quite recently. And think-tanks almost always have some sort of agenda, so may be independent of government, but are hardly ever unbiased.
Perhaps you might have interviewed an expert on radiation like Dr Theodore Rockwell, say, who might have been able to tell you how realistic such a plan actually was. And possibly a demolition and explosives expert might have been able to assess how effective the use of the limousine/gas bottle tactic would be in a space like an underground car park.
It might have crossed your mind to wonder why someone would plead guilty to an offence like that, especially when the evidence was more suggestive of a deluded loner than a serious criminal. Without proof of another conspirator, the activities of this person would not have been criminal, unless under one of the more draconian recent 'anti-terror' laws - which are unlikely to impress a sentencing judge worth his salt.
Perhaps, you might have thought, he pled guilty because he was under indictment for a similar crime in the
I'm not sure how to go about explaining the idea of government scaremongering. The Today programme featured the concept in the era before the highly suspicious, un-inquested and largely unquestioned (by the BBC anyway) death of David Kelly.
As for Robert Cottage, I wasn't making a recommendation, just a criticism of the fact that there was no coverage of the arrests at the time.
"The recent release after three months' imprisonment of two of those detained in connection with the alleged aircraft plot" refers to this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6107060.stm which was barely reported by the BBC, even though two innocent people were held for three months, and even though it was, in a way, analogous to a partial retraction, which is generally supposed to have similar prominence to the original story.
I have my own ideas about the so-called 'War on Terror', as well as the illiberal and undemocratic nature of the Blair premiership in general. I don't expect the BBC to agree with me on every point. But I do think that you are in danger of allowing politicians and those with their own agenda to manipulate your coverage, by the timing or content of official announcements, and thus indirectly by influencing the broader news agenda and presuppositions - as in this case. You must be aware that Blair would like if he could to write (or spike) every story for you, and you have seen the lengths he will go to to distort and misinform. Those two considerations ought to lead you to be much more thoughtful and critical than it appears you ( i.e. the BBC) in fact are.
I complained to you at the BBC, and not to the Murdoch media, because I have a genuine affection for the corporation, and faith in its essential independence. I would hate to see the coverage of this unique organisation slip into an easy acquiescence in state manipulation of the content and agenda of the news.
yours faithfully,
Tim Wilkinson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
